As for the current Stake rate annualized.. here's my numbers for last 6.6 days:
320 CLAM in 3 wallets... 38 x 0.10 stakes = 1 + (3.80/320) ^ (365/6.6) = 91% annualized
Uh, (3.80/320) ^ (365/6.6) = 0. Not so sure about your math there. |
|
|
|
|
Glad I'm a linux miner and don't have to worry about system RAM like apparently Windows users do.
|
|
|
|
probably one false alarm from 53 total virus application? If is there real virus or trojan, must be showed on more virus engines.
What a bullshit excuse. Not that the anti-virus above is worth anything in the first place. Source please. Otherwise, this probably is malware. |
|
|
|
I'm amazed we're still doing all this tweaking blindly with so much guesswork and trial and error. There's got to be a way to accurately and precisely measure what's possible/stable, based on the numbers alone.
Everybody's clocks have different tolerances. It'd be easier just to say stock clocks and unedited .cl files, but fuckit; gotta try and get that extra 200Kh/s. If you don't somebody else might. But why would they have different tolerances if they're built exactly the same? Are we talking differences in heat/humidity or something? GPU ASIC qualities vary significantly. Quite simply, no 2 GPUs will perform the same, and this is true even when you have cards with sequential serial numbers. |
|
|
|
Furthermore, as we have very recently experienced -and continue experiencing- the posts of people like Bobsurplus, smoothie and others, especially those from the blackcoin carrion vultures fan club, etc., not only don't disturb the flow of exchange, vitality, dynamism and information that are signs of a coin which is alive and in contact with both the community and the new people coming into crypto, but actually help since their intentions/motivations are so transparent and the rest take them for what they are quite easily.
Gotta ask - what exactly were smoothie's transparent intentions/motivations, exactly? I'd think that anyone who knows smoothie from a hole in the ground wouldn't have said that... Bobsurplus... sure, obvious troll who's having fun... but smoothie? really? |
|
|
|
phzi wasn't a troll. He probably left pissed off after that FryguyUK abused him. Wankers like that make anyone want to leave. But Bob omg, what a crackpot.  At least some people get it... And yes, bob is a huge troll - an amusing one at least tho. To be clear: I have no monetary interest in inflating or deflating the VRC value. I just have strong opinions about the actions taken by the developers, and the viability of this coin. If you take the time to read the thread around when the MintPal rollback happened, you'll see there are many many more that agree with what I have to say. Anyone claiming I have monetary interests is falsely trying to discredit me, and rather obviously has a monetary interest in propping up VRC themselves. I'll say again too, because some people are ignoring my previous statement obvious: I've never supported another coin in this thread, nor would I... If you think I'm a troll, you're a fool. |
|
|
|
|
And the Sells flood the market again, lol. Nice pump; just in time to dump the last of your VRC if you're still holding a bag.
|
|
|
|
Nonsense, you can and SHOULD blame anyone who's an agent of the company... Fiaz speaks on behalf of Alpha-T, so he's fully culpable for their actions as far as I'm concerned.
Sorry for to abstract level of irony. Heh, Sarcasm is easily lost when there are so many shills. |
|
|
|
It's past the end of business day in the UK, and no update from Fiaz...
No surprise there.
Don't write Fiaz off just yet. He has a habit of posting updates at 11pm + UK time as Alpha are such a professional, organised and well oiled machine  Sorry, but you can't blame Fiaz. He was hired as a customer support manager and ended with a copywriter job.  Nonsense, you can and SHOULD blame anyone who's an agent of the company... Fiaz speaks on behalf of Alpha-T, so he's fully culpable for their actions as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
|
I can read market manipulation, but I can also read posts with an agenda! idiot.
What you need is a good slap around the head! Buy away you morons! Hidden agenda, you know nothing about me thats obvious. Talk about emotionally flipping out over a fake pump.Sorry I meant your a NOB! Just received this doosey from PUMPBANDIT: "Are you for real? You stupid fucking little cocksucker! Don't ever Msg me again you fucking little bitch whore" I was only highlighting the tells he gives away in messages! Talk about emotionally flipping out over a fake pump.> larf my ars off If you take it to PM, keep it in PM... you're obviously the one that has issues. |
|
|
|
It's past the end of business day in the UK, and no update from Fiaz...
No surprise there.
Don't write Fiaz off just yet. He has a habit of posting updates at 11pm + UK time as Alpha are such a professional, organised and well oiled machine Quoting for truth (albiet sarcastic truth), and comedy value. =p |
|
|
|
I found this about 2checkout "2Checkout (2CO) is an international third-party payment processor that, at its most basic level, allows money to be transferred from a buyer to you after a purchase is completed. Like its main competitor PayPal, 2CO is the name buyers will see if they check transactions on their credit card bill. The PCI-compliant company offers several features, including recurring billing and custom checkout.
If you’re a business that brings in a few thousand dollars per month or less, you’ll probably earn a higher discount rate from 2CO than what’s offered by standard merchant accounts. Another perk of using a third-party processor like 2CO is that you’re not held responsible for fraudulent or disputed charges, although you will have to pay a fee to 2CO for transaction disputes"
If this is the case you will not be covered under section 75 as the transaction is being processed by a third party. Section 75 only applies if you take payments via a merchant account directly through an acquirer bank. This means the bank and CC company are liable for the settlement of any disputes, not the third party processor: "If a cardholder pays for goods using a card and does not receive these goods, the card scheme will refund payment to the cardholder and reclaim this from the merchant (via the acquirer). If the merchant cannot refund the payment, say it has become insolvent, it is the acquirer who is liable for the refund."
Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act only applies in the UK and is a very specific and powerful form of CC protection. Unlike charge back which is a voluntary scheme, section 75 is part of UK law. Unfortunately any form of third party processing renders it void, some card issuers are more lenient than others so check with your provider if you want to go down this route. Although if your bill says "2checkout" and not "Alpha Technologies" its a safe bet to assume you will not be covered under section 75 I stand corrected.
It's past the end of business day in the UK, and no update from Fiaz... No surprise there. |
|
|
|
An high hashrate is only one of the many criterions which determine the price. Pesetacoin has an hashrate of about 200 Gh/s, and its market cap is still at less than 40 000$. Litecoin, having no considerable advantages over other coins and a small community, seems overrated to me.
I know that auxPoW allows to merge-mine with any scrypt coin, but I don't think that any scrypt coin beside Doge has a bright future.
I find this comment very odd; it's clear that Dogecoin has no future as a scrypt PoW coin - the network is horribly insecure these days, and that security continues to decline with each passing week. Your comment that Litecoin has no considerable advantage stands as evidence that you don't understand blockchain security and orphan resistance, and how these are the fundamental properties of a good crypto coin. Everything else is really just fluff at this point, and that's why the most secure chains are #1 and #2 in marketcap. |
|
|
|
If miner filters out all high shares, then he also makes less profit, because less shares are being sent.
Maybe someone is trying to hurt your business. Also he wouldn't make much less profit, he only filters out very difficult shares, the shares that are much more difficult than the easy shares that are used to count the hash rate. Unfortunately on p2pool also the difficult shares are needed, these are the shares that solve the blocks on the p2pool internal share chain, they are so high that only very few per hour are solved by an average miner. It reports the hash rate correctly with the help of the easy shares but it can't solve any p2pool share chain blocks which are needed to get reward on p2pool. I have had it running now for 19.5 hours @ 20 TH/s, here are the results: start: 22:30 end: 18:00 duration: 70200 seconds my rate: 17.8 TH/s (average during above period) pool rate: 1050.0 TH/s (average during above period) expected time to share: 884 s (= 15s * 1050 / 17.  expected shares total: 79actual shares total: 33 (4 orphan, 0 dead)[/font][/font] The hash rate that comes from nicehash is definitely poisoned. Maybe I should rent some more and point it to GHash.IO where It counts only the low difficulty shares. Basically, every pool is vulnerable to this kind of attack at the end then. Unfortunately, nothing comes to my mind what we could do to resolve this issue. It is the fundamental issue of pooled mining in my opinion. But I doubt that the majority of provided hashrate is poisoned. And if it bothers you so much, then I suggest you to not use p2p pools. 37 vs 79 shares is within perfectly reasonable margin of error, too... It's nonsense to conclude from those results that "The hash rate that comes from nicehash is definitely poisoned" - complete nonsense. I can show you plenty of mining stats that line up with that margin of error (e.g. I have found 1/3 as many blocks as expected, and over 3x as many blocks as expected over long long mining periods before). |
|
|
|
I pointed about 20-25 mh/s of my scrypt hash at the pool. I will let it run a day or so and see my stats.
I'd say give it at least a week, and then keep in mind that you will continue to receive very very slowly diminishing payouts into eternity. I mined for a few days, and I'm still getting payouts over a month later. Adding up the total income to date, it was probably the most profitable couple of days mining I've ever had (save maybe during the first doge boom with MiddleCoin). |
|
|
|
Anyone had success using vertminer 0.5.4? I use EXACTLY the same settings in 0.5.3 but the cmd window always closes when I try to start it.
Are there different settings I have to input to make it work?
Try sgminer v5; I don't think anybody really uses vertminer anymore. |
|
|
|
People think it's a poor decision if you didn't have money saved in it. The community is fully backing it, sorry you didn't get cheap coins from a hardcore hacker dump fella, truly sorry.
Saving coins life, prospects, peoples 100s of 1000s $/£, evading money in hands of a notorious person, proof devs act fast and actualy act >>>>> "centralized rollback criticism" most other coins have gone through in some form regardless of the fact you have some coins in the top 10 that are centralized from day 1.... bitcoin is becomes more centralized and only then will govs let it be.
The community isn't fully backing it - that's just ignorant. By saying that, you're either lying to yourself or you haven't done any research. I never would have bought into VRC after the MintPal fiasco either way, and I don't buy coins just to sell them at a profit over a short period... But, feel free to sling mud around that doesn't exist, it only proves you have nothing of value to contribute. Most other coins have NOT gone thru anything like VRC did. How the VRC devs handled the situation was a complete first. Even the devs said as much; plenty of other high-profile community members (bitcointalk community, not the non-existent "VRC community") have said as much. Just seems to be a few sore VRC investors saying otherwise. Bitcoin is becoming more centralized? You just lost all credibility, buddy, unless you can back that statement up? Hm? Is this your own bullshit interpretation of the NY legislation or something? |
|
|
|
There are hard-forks, forks, and blockchain rollbacks (essentially, large blockchain re-organizations).
Hard-forks are performed because there is a bug in the software that needs fixing - a fault in the software itself.
Bitcoin has had a few emergency hard-forks; 2 to be exact. These are positive changes - they show that the developers and community are on top of things, and capable of fixing the protocol or protocol implementation when necessary.
Forks are when there are two competing blockchains - this is usually a bad thing. Simple forks are often caused when there are protocol version conflicts, and the longer chain stops getting accepted by a set of nodes, who then branch into their own chain. Forks are almost always a bad thing.
Blockchain rollbacks and re-orgs happen when someone 51% attacks the network, or for the first time with VRC, when devs decide to force a revert to a previous checkpoint. Blockchain re-organizations (rollbacks) are VERY BAD. They show that the network has NO orphan security, and that you very simply should not trust your money on that blockchain.
A fork is not a fork. Anyone that says that has no idea what they are talking about, and you probably shouldn't believe anything else they claim to know.
Nothing I'm saying is untrue, nor attacking a specific coin. I would make these statements about any blockchain that was re-organized like VRC was.
It's not FUD if it's true - it's sharing knowledge.
FUD has become the most ridiculously overused buzz word in this thread. And it's being used to discredit people who's points cannot otherwise be disproven. So, please, keep shouting FUD at me... it's obvious you're the only one spreading bullshit when you do so.
After reading your explanation of the fork vs hard fork vs block chain roll back, I recalled the early days of vericoin. In the first day of mining, at around 1500 blocks, there was a fork (pow stage of vericoin was a fork heaven), the developer used a hard fork to hardfork the block chain to a early block before the fork happens. I lost about somewhere between 10000 and 12000 coins in that hard fork (I was in the hero pool, the long and main block chain, and the 0feepool was on shorter chain, and in the first day, diff was very very low). At that time, I didn't think much about the hard fork (or we can now call it a rollback). After reading this explanation, that hard fork is just a mistake and should never be done. What the developers should have done is to find the long block chain, and use that right block chain to ask miners go to miner on that chain, rather than rolling it back. Those forks happened multiple times and i remember it was rolled back multiple times. I was always mining in the hero pool and also lost some coins during those rollbacks. Now I think it back, the rollback after mintpal hack is not alone(it has been done multiple times before), it has shown the incompetence of the developers, looks like they don't know what they were doing and just do what they want to do, rather than following the right thing in the community. I don't want to FUD, but I am trying to say the fact. You guys can look at my post history and tell. Nobody care to reply to my post, except one guy sees what i said as FUD Anybody want to comment on it? It's definitely not FUD. This blockchain has evidently been plagued with issues from the start. The MintPal fiasco is just such a huge poor decision that it almost trumps the other bad history of the blockchain. It's significant to remember that Satoshi's important invention wasn't bitcoin, it was the decentralized trustless blockchain ledger. VRC is like a centralized bitcoin at this point, and a centralized blockchain isn't trustless, so it has almost no value... You can have all kinds of nifty "features" in your wallet, but if you can't trust the blockchain, then forget it. |
|
|
|
Is there something wrong with VeriCoin, again?
Ya - nobody will ever trust a blockchain that was rolledback under the circumstances that happened with VRC and MintPal. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin did rollback the blockchain because of external reasons...a hacker had exploited a vulnerable part of the software.
You need to read that quote again...
A hacker exploited a vulnerability IN the bitcoin core client - that would not be called an external problem... Durp. Core Client != Third Party Exchange. Get it? Bitcoin patched a vulnerability, which caused a rollback past the invalid block (it was an invalid block, afterall, just not detected properly). When you can show the vulnerability that VRC patched (they didn't...) then you can say it's the same. Bitcoin devs patched a bug via a hard-fork. VRC dev team FORCED a blockchain rollback. Are you starting to see the difference, or are you going to continue to be intentionally blind? @ phzi Ah so your a hero who is helping, I see  And so much effort too. So selfless I never said selfless - I get entertainment and a higher post count, lol. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
